A federal appeals court has affirmed the wire fraud and money laundering convictions and the resulting sentence for Sir Maejor Page, who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars through a Facebook fundraising page purportedly for “Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta” (BLMGA) but instead spent the money on personal luxuries, including a house, tailored suits, alcohol, and a prostitute.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion filed December 30, 2025, found no merit in Page’s extensive challenges to both his conviction and his sentence, concluding that the evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly supported the jury’s verdict.
The Rise and Fall of BLMGA
The case centers on Page’s activities in the summer of 2020, following the death of George Floyd. Page, who had previously tried to establish a local BLM chapter, created his own entity, BLMGA, and incorporated it as a nonprofit in Georgia. Crucially, he leveraged this status to receive donations via Facebook’s “Fundraisers” feature, where his organization appeared prominently when users searched for “Black Lives Matter.”
Although BLMGA’s tax-exempt status had been revoked by the IRS in 2019 due to missing tax forms, Page allegedly failed to fully sever its connection to the fundraising platform. Even after posting a notice that BLMGA was no longer tax-exempt, he simultaneously assured donors on the Facebook page that the funds would be used for protest gear, attorney fees, and bail money—insisting the use was “not personal” but “for the movement.”
Between May and September 2020, over $490,000 poured into the account. The court opinion details Page’s subsequent spending spree, which included thousands on fine dining, a bowling alley, over $2,000 on tailored suits, $15,000 in home renovations, and, most notably, over $108,000 to purchase a house in Toledo, Ohio, which he bragged was a “mini mansion.” Further incriminating evidence included a $300 payment for a prostitute and the purchase of several firearms and ammunition, despite being advised by an attorney that using charitable funds for weapons was inappropriate.
Affirming Convictions: Evidence of Fraud
Page appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the wire fraud and money laundering convictions. Because he failed to renew his challenge to sufficiency at the close of his own evidence at trial, the Sixth Circuit reviewed under a highly deferential standard: whether the record was “devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.”
Judge Thapar, writing for the panel, found the evidence overwhelming. To prove wire fraud, the government needed to show a scheme to defraud, use of interstate wires, and intent to deprive victims of property. The court emphasized that Page’s repeated, specific reassurances to donors about how the money would be spent—coupled with his subsequent private spending on luxury items—constituted ample proof of a scheme devised with intent to defraud.
The appeals court dismissed Page’s defense that notifying donors the organization lost its non-profit status was sufficient disclosure. The court noted that his selective disclosures did not warn donors he planned to buy suits or a house. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that attempts to re-register BLMGA later proved he was not a fraudster, suggesting those actions could easily be interpreted by a jury as attempts to cover up prior misconduct.
Regarding money laundering, Page challenged the conviction related to the Toledo home purchase, arguing the funds weren’t fully derived from completed offenses. The court clarified that the wire fraud offense—the act of misrepresenting the use of funds—was complete the moment Page made the deceptive promises to prospective donors, regardless of when the scheme formally ended or when he spent the money.
Sentencing Challenges Overruled
Page also contested several enhancements applied by the district court when calculating his advisory sentencing range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
Obstruction of Justice: The district court applied an enhancement for obstruction of justice based on perjury during Page’s testimony. Page had falsely claimed he consulted a lawyer before buying the Toledo house, when in fact, the lawyer testified the consultation occurred after the offer was made. The appellate court found the district court clearly established the three elements of perjury: a false statement under oath, willful intent, and materiality to the case (as the timing of legal consultation bore on his intent regarding the donations).
Loss Calculation: The district court calculated the loss at the full $490,000 raised, asserting that because the fraud was “pervasive,” separating legitimate uses from personal ones was impractical. Page argued the loss should be much lower. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court that when fraud is pervasive, the burden shifts to the defense to prove a reduction. Since Page’s spending on the house and personal items was clearly unrelated to the movement he advertised, the full amount was reasonably included in the loss calculation.
Number of Victims: The court upheld the two-level enhancement for offenses involving 10 or more victims. While only six victims testified, the government identified over 18,000 Facebook users who donated. The court found it a reasonable inference that all donors were deceived by Page’s repeated misrepresentations regarding the use of their contributions.
Evidentiary Rulings Upheld (Mostly)
Page also complained about evidence admitted at trial, specifically the introduction of his firearm purchases and payment to a prostitute. The court found the district court acted within its broad discretion by admitting this evidence. Such evidence was highly probative of Page’s intent to defraud, as these expenditures bore no relation to his stated mission. Furthermore, the recording regarding the prostitute included a key statement showing Page knew his use of the funds was improper (“too many red flags”).
The court did identify one error regarding character evidence: testimony from two witnesses (Darisaw and Radtkin) about Page’s specific past conduct (online posts, retaliation) was improperly admitted as character evidence. However, this error was deemed harmless because the evidence of Page’s guilt was overwhelming, meaning the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.
In sum, the Sixth Circuit found no grounds to overturn the jury’s findings or the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines.